Bricklayers Local 1 of MissouriDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 4, 1974209 N.L.R.B. 1072 (N.L.R.B. 1974) Copy Citation 1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Bricklayers Local Union No. 1 of Missouri , Bricklay- ers, Masons and Plasterers International Union, AFL-CIO and St. Louis Home Insulators, Inc. and Carpenters District Council of Greater St. Louis affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case 14-CD-470 April 4, 1974 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing charges filed by St. Louis Home Insulators, Inc., herein called the Employer, on September 13, 1973, and amended on October 5, 1973,1 alleging that Bricklayers Local Union No. 1 of Missouri, Bricklay- ers, Masons and Plasterers International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Bricklayers, has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activities with an object of forcing or requiring Employer to assign certain work to employees represented by Bricklayers rather than to employees represented by Carpenters District Coun- cil of Greater St. Louis affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called Carpenters. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Neil E. McDarby on October 18 and November 14. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issue. The Bricklayers and Carpenters have filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER It was stipulated that the Employer, a Missouri corporation with its principal office and place of business located in St. Louis County, Missouri, is engaged in business as an insulation contractor and insulation materials distributor, and annually pur- 1 All dates herein refer to 1973 unless otherwise noted. chases and has delivered to it insulation materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of Missouri. We find, therefore, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Carpenters and Bricklayers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background The Employer is the subcontractor for the installa- tion of all rigid polystyrene (also called styrofoam) insulation on the interior of the exterior masonry wall at the Parkside Place apartment project site in Kirkwood, Missouri. The Employer was awarded the subcontract for this work by the general contractor on the job, the Taylor Hitt Construction Company, herein called Taylor Hitt, sometime in April 1973. At or about the same time, Taylor Hitt awarded a contract for the brick and masonry work on the project to Martin Korn Brick Contracting Company, herein called Korn, whose employees are represented by Bricklayers. On May 29, the Employer made a written assignment of the work in dispute to its employees who are represented by Carpenters. Korn, the subcontractor for the brickwork, was scheduled to begin work on or about June 24. On or about June 20, Korn telephoned Barry Stewart Simon, vice president of Taylor Hitt, and, according to Simon's uncontradicted testimony, Korn told Simon that John Flynn, business representative of Bricklayers, had told him that he would not allow Korn to start the brickwork until Bricklayers was awarded the work under the insulation contract. In response, Simon informed Korn that Taylor Hitt expected Korn to start the brickwork on schedule. Korn replied, "Well, I don't know what I can do, my Union is telling me that I can't do it." It is undisputed that, after his conversation with Korn, Simon called the Home Builders Association, an association to which Taylor Hitt belonged, and asked whether the work in dispute belonged to Bricklayers or Carpenters. The Home Builders Association advised him that, in the St. Louis area, such insulation work was customarily performed by employees represented by Carpenters. Simon next called Bricklayers business representative, John 209 NLRB No. 166 BRICKLAYERS LOCAL 1 OF MISSOURI Flynn, and told Flynn that he wanted Korn's brickwork to start that day, and that, "It's my understanding that you told Korn that you could not start the job until the insulation had been awarded to the Bricklayers." Simon explained to Flynn that the job was not yet ready for the insulation work, inasmuch as the walls had to be built first. Simon also told Flynn that if he did not allow the brickwork to start it would cost Simon a lot of money and that it was illegal to have a work stoppage over a jurisdictional dispute. Simon asked Flynn to meet with the other parties and him in an effort to try to resolve the dispute. According to Simon's uncontrad- icted testimony, Flynn replied, "the time for discus- sion is now before the brickwork begins, because I have leverage now . . . once the brick is completed, then there goes my leverage." Simon again requested a meeting with Flynn and requested Flynn to allow the brick to be stocked. Flynn repeated that the time to discuss the awarding of the insulation "is now, not after the brick work is begun." According to the unrebutted testimony of John Hoffman, Employer's president, Simon telephoned him on or about June 22 and informed him that Bricklayers refused to start the brickwork unless it also had a prior assignment of the disputed insula- tion work. Hoffman replied that the insulation work was Carpenters work. However, he suggested that to avoid trouble resulting from the demand of Bricklay- ers for the work Simon contact representatives of both unions and have them resolve the dispute. Hoffman further testified, without contradiction, that on or about June 24 Simon called him again and told him that "I can't resolve it, I'm going to have to take the polystyrene board out of your contract-and give it to the Bricklayers." Simon also advised Hoffman that if the Employer wanted to keep the job, the work would have to be assigned to Bricklayers. Hoffman then telephoned Flynn who demanded that the Employer assign the disputed work to employees represented by Bricklayers. Hoffman told Flynn that under the circumstances he- had no choice but to give the assignment to Bricklayers. Thereafter, on or about June 22, Flynn called at the Employer's office where Hoffman's secretary, Mrs. Happe, gave Flynn a written assignment of the work in dispute. Flynn, however, rejected the assignment as written because it made reference to Bricklayers refusing to proceed with construction of the exterior wall unless it was first awarded the work of installing the rigid insulation. Flynn told Hoffman that, unless the wording of the assignment was changed, Bricklayers would not start the job. Consequently, Hoffman reluctantly changed the wording of the letter of assignment, protesting that 1073 he was being subjected to "coercion" and "black- mail." Hoffman also signed a collective -bargaining agreement with Bricklayers, a copy of which Flynn had brought with him, but testified that he did not read it either then or at any time subsequently. The Employer began the insulation work on September 11. To that end, Hoffman had earlier requested that Flynn dispatch a bricklayer to the jobsite at 8:30 a.m. that day. When the bricklayer did not report at 8:30 a .m., Hoffman sent one of the Employer's carpenters out to begin the job. However, when a bricklayer reported for work later that morning, the Employer used both his carpenter and the bricklayer to perform the work. Later that day, Flynn called Hoffman to complain that there was a carpenter on the job, and a Carpenters representative complained to Hoffman concerning the bricklayer's presence . Hoffman assured the Carpenters represent- ative that he would henceforth abide by the Employ- er's assignment of the work to Carpenters. On the following day, September 12, when the same brick- layer and carpenter appeared at the jobsite, the Employer again used a composite crew for the work and Flynn again telephoned Hoffman to protest the presence of the carpenter. As indicated above, the Employer used the composite crew for 2 days, after which time the work on one building was finished. Thereafter, on Septem- ber 26 or 28, Flynn telephoned Hoffman and asked him which union was going to get the insulation work on the remaining buildings still under construction. Hoffman replied that he was going to abide by the Employer's original assignment to Carpenters. Flynn thereupon reminded Hoffman of the Employer's subsequent assignment of the work to Bricklayers. Hoffman's reply was to the effect that the prior assignment of the work to Carpenters would control. The Employer has proceeded to perform the insulation work, which was scheduled to be complet- ed by January 1974, solely with its own carpentry employees. There has been no picketing and Hoff- man has had no further contact with Bricklayers. As noted above, the foregoing chronology of events is based on the uncontradicted and mutually corro- borative testimony of Simon, Hoffman, and Happe. Neither Korn nor Flynn appeared as a witness in this proceeding. B. The Work in Dispute The disputed work involves the installation of insulation on the interior of all exterior walls at Taylor Hitt Construction Company's Parkside Place apartment jobsite at Kirkwood, Missouri. 1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. Contentions of the Parties Bricklayers denies that it threatened the Employer and contends that, on the merits, the work in dispute should be awarded to employees represented by it. In support of the latter contention, Bricklayers argues that such work has historically been performed by bricklayers; that Bricklayers has a collective-bargain- ing agreement with the Employer which agreement specifically encompasses the work in dispute; and that the Employer gave a written assignment of the work to Bricklayers. Bricklayers also contends that the Bricklayers and the Carpenters International Unions have an agreement, signed in 1931, which awards jurisdiction of the work in dispute to employees represented by Bricklayers,2 and that the National Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdic- tional Disputes has in the past awarded such work to Bricklayers.; Carpenters contends that reasonable cause exists to believe that Bricklayers engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(D), and that the work in dispute should be awarded to employees of the Employer represented by Carpenters. It contends that it had a prior assignment of the work and that such work has historically been assigned by the Employer to employees represented by Carpenters. It is Carpen- ters further position that the work in dispute is not covered by the 1931 International agreement. The Employer's position, as stated at the hearing, is that there is reasonable cause to believe that Bricklayers engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(D), and that, consistent with its past practice and other relevant considerations, the work should be awarded to its employees who are represented by Carpenters. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed to the determina- tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, 2 The agreement reads in pertinent part SECOND: The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America shall have control of all cork installation and substitutes therefor not laid in cement or other plastic materials , when same is installed in floors, walls, partitions , roofs or ceilings , such installation to include the cutting and fitting thereof THIRD The Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers ' International Union of America shall control all cork installations and substitutes therefor where cement or other plastic materials are used when such cork is installed in floors, walls, partitions , roofs, and ceiling insulation, including the cutting of closures to fill out courses . All other cutting, fitting, nailing, skewering that may be required shall be done by members of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America 3 Bricklayers introduced in evidence as Exh . 4 a ruling of the National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes involving Carpenters, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated, and that there is no agreed-upon method, which is binding on all parties, for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. As to the latter aspect of this case, the Employer is a member of the Associated General Contractors of St. Louis, herein called AGC, and is therefore party to a collective-bargaining agreement between AGC and Carpenters, effective May 1, 1969, to May 1, 1974. That contract provides that the parties are bound by the terms and provisions of the agreement, effective May 1, 1948, creating the National Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes. On June 26, the Employer also signed a contract with Bricklayers which contains no provisions for the voluntary adjustment of jurisdictional disputes. The National Joint Board which was created in 1948 has ceased to exist. On June 1, 1973, a new Impartial Jurisdictional Dispute Board came into being by agreement between the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, and certain employer associations. The record here fails to establish that either the Employer or the AGC of St. Louis, of which it is a member, was a party to the creation of the new Impartial Joint Board or that they have stipulated to its procedures.4 Accordingly, we find that the Employer is not party to any agreed- upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the instant dispute through the procedures of the impartial Joint Board.5 With respect to the issue of whether reasonable cause exists to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated, the uncontradicted and corroborated testimony reveals that, on or about June 20, Kom informed Simon of Taylor Hitt that Korn would be unable to stock the brickwork because Bricklayers Business Representative John Flynn had advised him that bricklayers would not begin the brickwork unless -they were first awarded the disputed work. Bricklayers, and the Employer with respect to another job in which the award was made to Bricklayers 4 Under the new Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board , an employer, to be bound by its procedures , must sign a stipulation which reads as follows: In signing this stipulation the undersigned (employer)(employer association on behalf of its members ) agrees to be bound by the terms and provisions of the agreement establishing the Impartial Jurisdiction- al Disputes Board. In particular, the undersigned agrees to be bound by those provisions of the agreement requiring compliance "with the decisions and awards of the Board, Appeals Board or Hearings Panels- [art. Vill , sec. 1(a)] This stipulation shall run for the term of the agreement and shall continue in effect for each year thereafter unless specifically terminated effective upon the anniversary date of said agreement , in accordance with the notice provisions contained in the agreement . The effective date of the agreement shall be June 1, 1973. 5 Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers' International Union of America, Local No 1, AFL-CIO (Lembke Construction Co), 194 NLRB 649 BRICKLAYERS LOCAL 1 OF MISSOURI 1075 Thereupon Simon telephoned Flynn and confronted him with Korn's assertion that Flynn would not allow the brickwork to begin until bricklayers were assigned the work in dispute, adding that Taylor Hitt had a contract with Korn to start the brickwork per schedule. Flynn did not deny the truth of Korn's assertion as recounted by Simon to him. His only reply to Simon's statements was that bricklayers would not commence the brickwork unless they also received the insulation work, stating that "the time to discuss the awarding of the insulation is now before the brickwork begins, because I have leverage now ... once the brick is completed, then there goes my leverage." We view this answer by Flynn as a tacit admission that he had threatened Korn as the latter person advised Simon, and as a repetition to Simon of the threat that Bricklayers would withhold the services of the employees it represented until given the assignment of the disputed work. Further described events confirm our above con- clusion in this regard. Thus, Simon called Employer President Hoffman on two occasions, the first to advise him that the bricklayers were refusing to start their work unless they were first assigned the rigid insulation work, and the second time to inform him that the Employer either would have to assign the work to bricklayers or get off the job because Simon's efforts to resolve the dispute between the two unions claiming the disputed work had failed. As a result of these conversations, Hoffman called Flynn who demanded that the Employer assign the disputed insulation work to employees represented by Bricklayers. Hoffman advised Flynn that he had no choice but to do as Flynn wanted. In light of the contents of Hoffman's conversations with Simon, we believe it reasonable to conclude that Flynn's statement to Hoffman carried with it a veiled threat to hold up brickwork on the jobsite until the Employer either capitulated to the demands of the Bricklayers or was forced off the job by the cancellation of its contract by Taylor Hitt. And it is in this context of the direct and implied coercive threats of Flynn that we view Flynn's rejection of a letter assigning the disputed work to bricklayers because it made reference to Bricklayers refusal to begin construction of the interior walls unless it were awarded the disputed work as well, Hoffman's acquiescence in the deletion of this statement from the letter of assignment, and the Employer's execu- tion of a Bricklayers contract proffered by Flynn. In that light, these subsequent events fail to support the 6 Pepsi Cola Bottling Company, 187 NLRB 15. 7 Cf Addison Shce Corporation, 184 NLRB 333, in. 1 N NL.R.B v Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Columbia Bricklayers contention that the Employer assigned it the work without restraint or coercion. In reaching the above conclusion concerning Flynn's coercive conduct in seeking to obtain assignment of the disputed work, we recognize that the testimony as to what Flynn said to Korn, what Korn related to Simon about their conversation, and what Simon told Hoffman concerning Bricklayers efforts to obtain the disputed work is essentially hearsay as to Bricklayers. However, the testimony was neither contradicted nor disputed by Bricklayers despite the fact that Bricklayers was represented at the hearing by counsel and had ample opportunity to present witnesses to deny the testimony. Bricklayers failed to call Flynn as a witness to rebut the mutually corroborative adverse testimony of Simon, Hoffman, and Happe, and offered no explanation for not doing so. In these circumstances, an inference is warranted that, if Flynn had been called to testify, his testimony would not have assisted Bricklayers cause.6 In addition, there is direct uncontradicted testimony by Simon to the effect that Flynn told him that Bricklayers would not proceed with the brickwork unless and until it was first awarded the work in dispute; and that Flynn presented Hoffman with a demand for the work under circumstances implying that this condition went hand in hand with the demand. Finally, this hearing, under Section 10(k) of the Act, is an investigatory, rather than an adversary, proceeding, the sole purpose of which is to adduce all relevant evidence in order to determine whether or not reasonable cause exists to believe that the Act has been violated. In such a proceeding strict rules of evidence do not apply.? Accordingly, we find that reasonable cause exists to believe that in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) Bricklayers threatened and coerced the Employer, as well as Taylor Hitt and Korn, with serious economic harm unless the Employer assigned the work in dispute to employees represented by Bricklayers. We find, therefore, that the dispute is properly before the Board for resolu- tion. E. Merit of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving due consideration to all relevant factors. The following factors are relevant in determining the dispute before US .8 Broadcasting System], 364 U.S 573,586( 1961); International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J A Jones Construction Company, 135 NLRB 1402, 1411. 1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. Certification and collective-bargaining agreements Neither Bricklayers nor Carpenters has been certified by the Board as bargaining agent of the Employer's employees. The current contract between the Associated General Contractors of St. Louis and Carpenters to which the Employer is party contains language to the effect that nothing in the agreement shall be construed to define or determine any craft or work jurisdiction or the recognition thereof by the Employer. The Employer's contract with Bricklayers, on the other hand, does contain a provision that work of the kind involved here is Bricklayers work .9 However, considering the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Bricklayers agreement, as de- scribed above, and that the Carpenters contract does not specifically cover the work in dispute, we find that neither contract is determinative of the dispute. 2. The Employer's assignment and past practice As stated above, on May 29, the Employer made a written assignment of the work in dispute to Carpenters and the employees it represents. There- after, on or about June 26, the Employer made a similar assignment of the same work to Bricklayers. Because of these conflicting assignments and the circumstances under which the assignment to Brick- layers was made, we find that the assignments do not clearly favor either union or the employees they represent. The record reveals, however, that the Employer has consistently awarded the disputed work to its own carpenters since it began installing polystyrene insulation some 10 or 15 years ago. Except as noted below, it has never used employees represented by Bricklayers for this work.i° Based on the foregoing, we find that the Employer's consistent past practice favors awarding the work to its employees represented by Carpenters. 3. Area practice A representative of the Home Builders Association, the association to which Taylor Hitt belongs, testified that the application of polystyrene board to the interior of exterior walls has always been performed by carpenters in the St. Louis area. John P. Bartnett, the director of jurisdictional research for Associated General Contractors of St. Louis, the association to which the Employer belongs, also testified that it is the areawide practice to use carpenters for the disputed work. Bricklayers ad- duced testimony from one contractor who stated that he had used bricklayers to install insulation similar to the work in dispute. This contractor, however, had done only one such job in the area and used only mastic as an adhesive. The Employer here regularly used both mastic and nails to install the rigid insulation. Upon the entire record, we find that the area practice and custom favors employees repre- sented by Carpenters. 4. Relative skills and work involved The rigid insulation board is installed on the masonry wall by spreading a glue, known as mastic, on the backside of the board with a trowel, pressing the board to the wall, and holding it in place by means of nails which are hammered through the insulation into the masonry, so that the mastic has time to set. The nails remain in place permanently. Thus a combination of mastic and nails are used to bond the insulation to the'exterior wall. To assure a proper fit the insulation board is cut with a saw at the ceiling and floor. A knife is used to accommodate such fixtures as electrical outlets and the like through appropriate cutouts. The testimony of the Employer and another contractor of long experience indicated that mastic alone would not initially hold the insulation in place and that therefore the nailing is necessary. While some evidence on behalf of Brick- layers indicated that the insulation board can be successfully applied with mastic only, such evidence was limited to the testimony of one contractor based on his experience consisting of but the one job he performed in the area. We find that the factors of work and skills favor employees represented by Carpenters. 5. Efficiency and economy of operation The Employer testified that it is more efficient and economical for it to use carpenters for the work in dispute because such employees are regularly on its payroll. Since the Employer uses its carpenter employees for work other than insulation, the Employer would enjoy less operational flexibility if it had to use bricklayers. For the Employer's carpenters can immediately perform any of the various other jobs when the work in dispute is completed. Additionally, there was testimony that a shortage of bricklayers frequently exists which could continue to make it difficult for the Employer to obtain bricklay- ers when they are needed. Therefore,. considering 9 The Bricklayers contract states "The work of the Union is where it used a composite crew of bricklayers and carpenters. However the insulation in masonry walls such as cork blocks , mineral wood bats, Employer was dissatisfied with the bricklayers ' work and found a composite zonohte, and styrofoam " crew to be inefficient. Therefore, other than that experience, it has not used10 The Employer stated that there were one or two isolated jobs in 1967 bricklayers again except under the circumstances herein indicated. BRICKLAYERS LOCAL 1 OF MISSOURI that the Employer already has carpenters on his payroll, that the carpenters can do a number of different jobs for the Employer, and the apparent difficulty of obtaining bricklayers, we find that the factors of efficiency and economy of operations favors employees represented by Carpenters. 6. Joint Board determinations Bricklayers contends that decisions by the National Joint Board favor awarding the disputed work to it. Bricklayers submitted several Joint Board awards from other parts of the country pertaining to the application with mastic of rigid insulation to mason- ry walls. In addition, Bricklayers submitted a 1971 Joint Board decision involving the same parties who are here involved. The record shows, however, that neither the Employer nor Carpenters participated in that Joint Board proceeding. The Employer and Carpenters contend that the several Joint Board awards have no bearing upon the issue at hand, claiming that such refer to only a few employers in a few States; there is no evidence that the work there involved is completely comparable to the work herein; the Employer was not a party to and did not participate in any of these disputes; and Carpenters was not a party to many of these Joint Board decisions. Although we have considered National Joint Board awards a factor in determining the proper assign- ment of disputed work, we find that the awards submitted in evidence by Respondent are neither binding on the Employer nor deternunative of area or national practice. As to the 1931 agreement, between the two International unions, the agreement provides that installation of cork or substitutes of cork is the work of bricklayers. Bricklayers claims that the rigid insulation here involved is a substitute for cork and that, therefore, under that agreement the disputed work should be awarded to bricklayers. Carpenters, on the other hand, contends that the 1931 agreement was limited to and governed only insulation work on freezers and cooler buildings and has no application to polystyrene insulation affixed to the interior of exterior masonry walls. In view of the facts that (1) the -Employer has not agreed to be bound by the 1931 agreement and (2) the parties do not agree whether the agreement covers the disputed work, we find the 1931 agreement does not constitute an agreed-upon resolution of the instant dispute and does not favor either party. Conclusion Upon consideration of all relevant factors, we 1077 conclude that the Employer's employees who are represented by the Carpenters are entitled to the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion upon the Employer's assignment of the disputed work to its own employees , the fact that the assignment is consistent with the Employer's past practice as well as the area practice, the employees represented by Carpenters possess the requisite skills to perform the work , and such an assignment will result in greater efficiency, economy, and continuity of operations. Accordingly, we shall determine the dispute before us by awarding the work in dispute at the Taylor Hitt Construction Co., Parkside Place apartment site at Kirkwood, Missouri, to those employees represented by Carpenters, but not to that union or its members. In consequence, we find that Bricklayers is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require the Employer to assign the disputed work to employees represented by it. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and on the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following Determination of the Dispute: 1. Employees of St . Louis Home Insulators, Inc., who are represented by the Carpenters District Council of Greater St. Louis, affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work consisting of the installation of insulation on the interior of all exterior walls at the Taylor Hitt Construction Company's Parkside Place apartment site at Kirkwood, Missouri. 2. Bricklayers Local Union No. I of Missouri, Bricklayers , Masons, and Plasterers International Union, AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means pros- cribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require St . Louis Home Insulators , Inc., to assign the above work to employees represented by it. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Bricklayers Local Union No. 1 of Missouri, Bricklayers, Masons, and Plasterers International Union , AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing , whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring St. Louis Home Insulators , Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute in a manner inconsistent with the above determination. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation